An art of piece is according the post-modern artist no longer to be considered as a product that is standing in a particular art tradition, and having to add something to that, by having meaning for the present. Post-modern art does not value progress or development, because these notions remind of ideology. For the post-modern artist the time of the “grand narratives” is over, since the new motto is “anything goes” Rules are out.

The post-modern artist tries to mix popular culture with art in traditional sense through his art. He wants to dissolve the line between elite culture and “low” culture. He manages to do so, by choosing daily, average, not esthetical objects from mass production – a soap box, a soup can, a picture from the newspapers. Mass production is namely a striking feature of contemporary consumer society, thus well representing popular culture. In this way one tries to shape the cliché’s of the welfare state as a sort of archetype into an art object. Warhol is the best example of this. Using items of pop culture– photo copies – and reproducing them – the idea of mass production – hundreds of times. In this way the art object doesn’t refer to a reality – a person – but to other images – so we have now a “hyper reality”. By closing the gap between high culture and low culture, post-modern artists also dissolve the gap between art and life. Integrating art into life and society, opposing the idea that art should have an ivory tower character (the idea that art should not be used for contemporary societal matters).
Art has now a high societal engagement, resulting in a connection with all aspects of life. For example, advertisement gets interwoven with art – see Benneton -- as well with societal issues – Benneton’s. With societal engagement is not meant that art now has to have a clear political message or program – no avant-garde – the artist does not per se use the images out of popular culture to transform society, it has its esthetical goal an sich. Modernism was meant to transform society according to rational plan, postmodernism opposes modernism. However, having a societal “effect” of course is not seen as something wrong. Cindy Sherman brought the position of women under attention through her work, without having the ambition to start a feministic revolution.

According to criticizers post-modern art has a very negative influence on art in general. This art form is even referred to as “the end of art” In art literature there are a few arguments for this position. I ll shortly present them, and then exam them, to find out if the “end of art” label is tenable. Many times criticizers have pointed out that post-modern art lacks a progression notion. Maarten Doorman explains this, by applying Kuhn’s science theory to the development of art. According to Kuhn, in the development history of science one can each time see two periods. The first one is “normal” science, a period in which one agrees on how the world looks like, scientifically spoken. This agreement on methods, rules, and propositions, Kuhn calls a “paradigm.” At a certain moment all “the puzzles” within the paradigm are solved, or they seem not to be solvable. Anomalies occur and a feeling of discomfort arises. Existing propositions are being doubted upon and a rivalling view on the world appears. This finally leads to what Kuhn calls a scientific revolution, which is the second sort of period he mentions. If science wants to develop it is absolutely necessary that these two periods have a large range of time in between them, as well that they are clearly discernable from each other. This is according to Doorman, not the case with post-modern art. If the motto is “anything goes” many art sorts follow each other in a fast tempo. Even at the same time. The period of “normal science” gets shorter and shorter, finally dissolving in a permanent period of non stop revolution. Breaches with the past arise more often and it is not possible to decide whether there is progress. Important developments are following up in fast tempo and come close to each other in time; Doorman asks how high a top can be in case you are already looking to the next top of development. One cannot discuss art in terms of progression, one cannot compare. For discussing progress a certain degree of linearity is needed. In case of constant braking there is no direction and progression, thus no way to measure whether art is still in progress. It seems according to Doorman that we are with modernism at the point where art has stopped.

Another argument is that post-modern art is often conceptual. The artist gives in the artwork itself a reflection of the aesthetic value and therefore, the question what has to count as art, is answered by the artist himself. By this it is again difficult to place art in a linear history. What progress is, is decided by the artist in his reflection, and his progression idea can change in each art object, as well it can contradict. The development of art does not go stabile in this way. Even if the artist thinks he is using a progression idea, it is not a stable one and this is not good for the need of continuity, according to Doorman. The conceptual artist also exceplicity demonstrates how the art object has to interpretated by the viewer. He shows what the meaning is. Apart from the fat that the art lover gets deprived from his pleasure to interpretate art, a situation can arise in which artists – such as Warhol – give meaning to something that is completely meaningless. It is the situation, that something is called art, because it is from the hands of a famous artists. A Warhol soapbox, that looks exactly the same one in the shop, is now valuable.

A last argument against post-modern art is the consequence of the motto “anything goes.” Because “anything goes” all sorts of opinions about what has to count as art, simultaneously come to alive among artists. Critizers fear this has two consequences.
First, all the diverse art sorts will have to conquer each other for their right of existence, which results in a strong competition. It will be, more than before, necessary to attack the attention of the consumer. Art will go down to the level where it is only important to satisfy the needs of the consumer. The sound of flowing cash dictates the level of art, and it becomes a commodity. Another consequence is that there wont be interest in group action, schools, anymore, because compitition rules. No more values will be developed and no one feels the need to open new perspectives for the others. This wont be good for the development of art

The three arguments presented above, are supporting the claim that postmodernism means “the end of art.” The three arguments have in common that the notion of progression is absolutely required for the development of art. Without this notion art has no right of existence. Rules are needed end lines have to be drawned. According to Doorman art can only develop in a process in which rules slowly are trapped, by which lines are crossed and new borders come into existence. However, in order to trap rules, there have to be rules. The notion of progress postulates rules, which are also needed as means of reference for art critic. If there are existing clear rules one is able to decide whether a piece of art is something “new” and transgressing borders. It is exactly this art critic that guarantees the quality of art.

Is the missing of the notion of progress and with that, the need of rules in the art world, really that destroying for the quality and development of art? I don’t think so. I ll try to explain this by putting both cases in a different spotlight.

The notion of progression put art in a perception in which time is seen linear. What happened in the past has to be ‘better’ in the future. In Kuhn’s science theory Aristotle disappeared slowly to make place for Galilei and Copernicus. In art this is not the case at all. The success of Picasso didn’t mean that Rembrandt got valued as less worth in art critic. Linear progress is not eminent on the world of art. Why is then necessarily to discuss art in terms of progression these days? Another argument against the thought that one has to be able to decide whether if art is progressing at a certain moment in time, is that this notion of progress leans on a value statement. This judgement of value is changing. A lover of roman art in painting will judge the development from baroque via classism to romantic differently, namely as a progress, and he wont perhaps see Picasso not a a positive development from Friedrich upto the present painting art. The perspective from which a development is regarded upon is always depending on a judgement of value, thus not objective. And because rules for making values more ‘consistent’ (deciding what has to count as ‘objective’) are always submitted to change. So, what has ‘objectively’ has to count as progress, is not a fix set of rules. The Academie Francaise found in impression not ‘real’ art, whereas nowadays it is generally agreed that it is art indeed, as well as an enrichment of art. This time-related character of rules makes it impossible to come to univocal, objective statements about progression in art. An art critic who tells that Monet is the summon of painting art uses a false objectivity, as an other critic can use with the same arguments that Dali is the summon. Since we deal here with merely subjectivity, notions of progress can’t play a useful role anymore. In the third place, the much critized conceptual character of post-modern art could be seen as exactly the ‘result’ of the progression perspective. Since the defenders of this notion put so much stress on progression, artists felt the need to be accountable for their work and thus express this accountabily by a statement in their work. A reflection as a reaction to the Zeitgeist. According to Danto the notion of progress has caused the disappearing of art.

According to Doorman there should be rules and borders/lines for contemporary art. I think we have the danger of dogmas then. It reminds of the eighteenth century Academia Françoise, dictating strict rules for composition, use of colour, and surface of the painting.
Who will dictate these rules? Of course it won’t be the State, which would lead to a sort of Russian People’s Art in times of dictatorship. No freedom of expression, that’s clear.
It’s true that Doorman doesn’t imply this sort of practise, because he tells that the rules can be broken. Development by slowly breaking rules, rules as a reference to evaluate the action by which rules are trapped upon. I wonder how Doorman sees this. Some of the breaches are development; some breaches are not leading to positive development. Who is going to judge about this? Are ‘meta rules’ available to objectively decide about this? It has been suggested that a forum of interested (art lovers and scientists) and not-interested (John Doe) people decide about this, in public discussion. John doe, how much the post-modern art tries to break the gap between high and low culture, is in general not so much interested in complicated debates about art, as well, since it’s a public issue he wont safe time for it. Even communal elections don’t interest him, so we don’t have much to expect from his attendance. The forum results in a debate between the conceptual artists who is then defending his work ‘against’ the critics, who have their own ideas about art. Meta discussion will follow about the division of seats and voting right, discussion procedures, it will never be an organ in which we see artists and critics in a spirit of harmony. It is polarisation, both camps clamping their subjective positions. And art should remain a subjective matter. No rules, no need for categorizing art in fixed boxes under the label progression or “the end of art.” Leave Warhol’s freedom open to question the status of art, artificially expressing the visual hyper reality we are undergoing and let the soapboxes run over the counter, being it the one of the supermarket or the one at the TEFAF. Let the criticers feel nervous, not having tools (rules) to do some talking about what ‘good art’ is. We can decide that for ourselves.